JUDGMENT
P.C. Misra, J.
1. This revision is directed against an order dated 10-5- 1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur in Execution Case No. 1989 rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor in respect of payment of interest to the decree-holder on the compensation amount already awarded in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 63/86.
2. Pursuant to a notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) Ac. 3.60 acres of land was acquired in Revenue mouza Rampur, situated within the urban area of Rairakhol for construction of Inspection Bungalow, Staff Quarters, Office and Godown of the Sub-divisional Officer, National Highway No. 42. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per acre. The claimant did not accept the rate of compensation and demanded at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Reference was made to the Court Under Section 18 of the Act. The Court after considering the evidence led before it enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The State of Orissa preferred First Appeal No. 34/88 in this Court challenging the rate of compensation awarded by the Court. The claimant also preferred a cross-objection. This Court after hearing both parties dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objection, thus confirming the award passed by the Subordinate Judge. The claimant decree-holder has filed execution case to realise the compensation awarded together with the interest. The dispute arose as to the rate of interest and the period for which the same is payable.
3. In the first appeal preferred against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, no challenge appears to have been made as regards the rate of interest awarded by the Subordinate Judge. In the first appeal the rate of compensation for the land acquired was the only question which was urged and discussed. Thus the direction of the Sub- ordinate Judge as regards the rate of interest and the period for which the same is payable is the basis of the claim made by the decree-holder in the execution case.
4. The ordering portion of the award passed by the Subordinate Judge in the reference Under Section 18 of the Act is quoted below for reference :
“That the Misc. Case is allowed on contest without any cost. The objector is entitled to compensation for his acquired land at the rate of Rs. 500/- per decimal, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- per acre along with 30% additional compensation for compulsory nature of acquisition and interest @ 9 % per annum. If the excess amount of compensation awarded by the Court or any part thereof has been paid into the Court after date of expiry of a period of 1 year from the date of this order, interest @ 1 5% per annum shall be paid to the petitioner/objector from the data of expiry of the said period of 1 year on the amount of such excess or any part thereof which has not been paid into the Court before the date of expiry of the said period of one year Under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference is answered accordingly.”
The order is explicit and clear that (i) the claimant is entitled to compensation for his acquired land @ Rs. 500/- per decimal, i.e. Rs. 50,000 /- acre along with 30% additional compensation for compulsory nature of acquisition.
(ii) He is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum
(iii) The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the excess amount awarded by the Court if the same is not paid within a period of one year from the date of the order passed by the Court and such interest of 15% shall be payable on the unpaid amount from the date of expiry of the said period of one year. The claimant-decree holder in the execution case claimed Rs, 1, 83, 500/- for 3,67 acres of land. He further claimed Rs, 55,050/- representing 30% additional compensation for the compulsory nature of acquisition, interest at the rate of 15% was claimed from 1.1.72 to 31. 3. 89 amounting to Rs. 5, 81, 465/-. The judgment-debtor filed an objection on 1, 11. 90 disputing the claim made in the execution case. It was stated that the decree-holder was paid a sum of Rs. 1, 97, 172/- on 5, 10, 90 besides the payment previously made and there is no outstanding dues payable to the decree-holder. A calculation sheet was also submitted justifying the aforesaid statement. The decree- holder filed an objection asserting that the claim made in the execution petition is in accordance with the direction of the Court and the contention of the judgment-debtor that the entire decretal dues have been paid and the execution case has been satisfied is untenable. This led the learned executing Court to interpret the direction of the Subordinate Judge in the award passed by it and it was held that the claim of interest of the decree-holder is in conformity with the direction of the Court and the calculation sheet submitted by the judgment-debtor is not acceptable. In this revision, the learned counel appearing for the judgment-bebtorpetitioner challenges the interpretation so made by the executing Court.
5. I have already quoted the ordering portion of the award passed by the Subordinate Judge in the reference made to it Under Section 18 of the Act. It appears to us that the Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable after expiry of one year from the date of the passing of the order. As reference to Section 28 of the Act has been made in the order passed by the Court, the executing Court interpreted the order differently. Section 28 of the Act runs as follows :
“28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation ;- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have award’ as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court :
Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.”
Award of interest Under Section 28 of the Act is not mandatory, but discretionary Interpreting the said Section the Supreme Court in a decision reported in A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 466 (Raghunans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnox) observed as follows :
“In its language the discretion that is conferred on the Court is whether in the given circumstances of a particular case the Court should award interest or not. The words “may direct’ mean that it is discretionary on the part of the Court to grant or refuse to grant interest. But the words following those words, viz, “the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum” would mean that once the discretion to grant interest is exercised there is no further discretion and the interest if awarded has to be at the rate of six per centum per annum.”
The words “six per centum” have been substituted by the words “nine per centum” by Act 68 of 1984 in the present case the Subordinate Judge exercised its discretion in favour of granting interest and allowed 9% interest in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act. Thus the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the excess amount of compensation awarded by the Court from the date on which possession of the acquired land was taken till the date of payment of such excess amount into the Court.
6. The next part of. the direction of the Court also requires scrutiny. The Court further directed that if the excess amount awarded by the Court has not been paid within one year from the date of the order passed by the Court, the claimant decree holder would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum on such excess amount from the date of expiry of one year, This order was passed by the Subordinate Judge on 8-3-1988. Thus if the excess amount or any part thereof is not paid on or before 8-3-1989, the decree-holder, according to the plain language of the order will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 8-3-1989 till the date of payment. The Court has mentioned as if the said direction is being passed Under Section 28 of the Act. The proviso to Section 28 of the Act gives a further discretion to the Court that it may also direct for payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum payable from the date of expiry of one year from the date of taking possession on the excess amount or part thereof which has not been paid into the Court before the date of such expiry. The contention of the decree-holder opposite party is that since Section 28 of the Act has been referred to by the Subordinate Judge, the interest at the rate of 15% per annum should be payable from the date of expiry of one year of taking possession of the acquired land and not from the date of expiry of one year from the date of the order as directed by the Court, in my opinion, by merely making a reference to Section 28 of the Act the specific direction of the Court cannot be ignored. The proviso to Section 28 gave a discretion to the Court to award interest at a higher rate if the excess amount awarded by the Court has not been paid within one year from the date of taking possession. During the course of hearing, required the learned counsel for both parties to submit their respective calculation sheets indicating the date when possession was taken as the same was not available from the record placed before us. The Addl Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted a calculation sheet on 10. 4. 1992 whereas the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder-opp-parties declined to file any saying that he has nothing further to show except the calculations made in the execution petition. Since the decree-holder did not co-operate, it was not possible for this Court to check, up and quantify the amount payable under the decree. I would therefore dispose of this revision giving the guidelines for such calculation which the executing Court shall do and pass appropriate orders quantifying the liability of the judgment debtor.
7. The compensation for the acquired land together with 30% additional compensation for compulsory nature of acquisition comes to Rs. 2, 38, 350/-. The decree-holder admits in the execution application to have received a sum of Rs. 88,609, 40 P. which the judgment-debtor alleges to have been paid on 7.3.1986. The Court has directed 9 per cent to be paid on the awarded amount though the order is silent as to from which date the said interest becomes payable. It must be interpreted to mean that such interest is payable from the date on which possession of the acquired land was taken by the Government. Calculating the interest from such date the liability of the judgment debtor has to be calculated from out of which a sum of Rs. 88,609.40 P. has to be deducted which the judgment debtor has already paid to the decree-holder on 7. 3. 1986. The Subordinate Judge passed an award in the reference Under Section 18 of the Act on 8. 3. 1988 containing the aforesaid directions. As per the directions contained in the said order if any amount remains unpaid till the expiry of one year from the date of the order interest has to be paid at the rate of 15% on such amount till the date of payment. Calculating the liability of the judgment-debtor in the aforesaid manner the Court has to find out if a sum of Rs. 1,97,l72/-has been paid by the judgment-debtor on 5. 10. 1990 as stated in the objection. If such amount has been paid the same shall have to be deducted from the total liability and the judgment-debtor should be proceeded against for the balance amount.
8. In the result the revision is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.